Forest Knowledge Gateway
Forest restoration and integrative management.

As climate change influences forests around the world, "climate-smart forestry" has become a popular concept in science and policy. But what does it actually mean?

A new study reviewed a decade of scientific literature and found that there is no single definition. Instead, climate-smart forestry brings together different ways of thinking about forests and climate change. Some approaches focus on storing more carbon, others on making forests more resilient to droughts, storms and pests, while others emphasize innovation, governance and collaboration.

The study also reveals an important gap: while forests are expected to deliver climate, biodiversity and economic benefits at the same time, questions about who makes decisions, who benefits and who bears the costs receive far less attention.

By identifying four recurring ways of understanding climate-smart forestry, the research offers new insights into one of the most influential concepts shaping the future of forest management.

Which forests should be strictly protected to best support biodiversity? A new study from North Rhine–Westphalia explores this question using spatial modelling to compare different conservation pathways for achieving the EU's target of protecting 10% of land. The findings show that different conservation goals lead to very different priorities. While large wilderness areas create more connected landscapes, they do not always protect the greatest diversity of valuable habitats. Involving private forest owners can significantly improve biodiversity outcomes, but requires effective incentives and long-term support. The study demonstrates how systematic conservation planning can help policymakers navigate trade-offs and design protected area networks that are both ecologically effective and socially feasible.

This study examined how forest management affects carbon storage in forests of the Brabantse Wouden National Park in Belgium. By comparing carefully matched managed and unmanaged forest sites, researchers found that unmanaged forests stored significantly more carbon above ground, mainly because they contained fewer but larger trees. The study also tested whether satellite data could accurately estimate forest carbon stocks. Combining different satellite sources improved carbon estimates compared to using optical imagery alone. However, satellite-based models were unable to detect the carbon stock differences observed in the field between managed and unmanaged forests. The results highlight both the value and current limitations of remote sensing for forest carbon monitoring and underline the continued importance of field measurements for assessing management impacts.